I hate that the term "marriage" has become analogous to a civil union. That being said, what do people think of the government actually legalizing gay marriage (I'm 100% opposed) rather than only honoring the legal and financial side of the marriage (civil union).
What is in "gay marriage" that is not in "civil union"?
Well, first, "gay" isn't in civil union, but aside from that marriage is holy matrimony and simply means that two or more people are joined in a religious cerimony, usually christian, under God, etc...
A civil union allows for two people (or more, but that's unlikely to be legalized) to have tax breaks and other benefits. Normally getting married implies getting a civil union, but they are not identical terms.
Ahhh, 'Murica, the land of the knee-jerk reaction of the uniformed.
Personally I think governments should recognise Civil Unions only. What society at large chooses to call these legal arrangements (eg, marriage) shouldn't really have any impact on legislation or the government.
As for having to change all existing laws - that is ultimately true, however it would be possible to pass laws that said "all existing laws that mention Marriage are now held to be equally valid for Civil Union".
Sad but true. I tend to be very open to opposing ideas, but we are all susceptible to knee jerk reactions.
100%? Come on, man, leave yourself some margin of error.
I'm pretty stalwart about this point.
Reads rest of response.
If you were around in the 1960's, you could have perhaps prevented interracial marriage from using the "M" word as well. I think your viewpoint, while seemingly reasonable on the surface, is an old-fashioned one: it's excellent that "marriage" is becoming synonymous with "civil union". Here's why:
1) If you're saying the state shouldn't recognize the term "marriage" because it's strictly a religious word: it's not, at least not since the entirety of the United States' history. "Marriage" is and always has been the legal term, despite the word's religious root.
2) English is an evolving language; new words and phrases are created out of natural necessity, and others are deprecated as they fall to obscurity. The term "civil union" doesn't need to exist anymore, as its purpose to serve as a way to express bigotry is declining in social acceptance. Seriously, go read up the
wiki article: the only reason the term exists is because societies weren't ready to accept same-sex couples as marriage-worthy.
3) "Separate but equal" is a tried and failed methodology. Trying to distinguish between "marriage" and "civilly united" is only trying to fuel the fight against gay marriage in the first place, and will channel an attitude of "Oh, you're not
really married." It's just another way people can attempt to look down on others.
So yes, I am in support of legalizing gay
marriage, and I am opposed to using the term "civil union" to try and perpetuate the long-standing animosity toward homosexuals. This has nothing to do with the state telling the church what to do, of course: churches that want to continue to discriminate against gay couples should be free to do so, on the same grounds that they could discriminate against interracial couples. The state, however, should have no concern regarding the religion, race, sex, etc. of two married people.
You almost convinced me, but I stand by my convictions here.
So I'm 100% opposed to the government passing a law that legalizes gay marriages which would require a religious marriage in any religious institution. I'm 100% for gay marriage on a per community (local or national). I'm a member at an ELCA church, and their official statement is:
On Marriage Equality
While the Churchwide Assembly has not come to agreement on the issue of marriage equality, the ongoing debate has prompted a policy that gives autonomy to individual ministers and their congregations, resulting in the celebration of same-sex marriages at many ELCA churches across the country.
Which isn't great, but essentially if they were to fully support gay marriage, we'd have yet another schism, and since many churches aren't 100% on this issue, the current non-solution seems to be the best one. They'll decide next year on what to do. Hopefully by then all the crazies will have left their churches and gone to a more welcoming Missouri Synod or some other church that still actively persecutes women and homosexuals.
You see Civil Unions as damaging, but I see them as a necessary distance from the more religious "marriage". None of my cousins are married, and those that are with significant others are likely never going to get married in the first place, partially due to an aggressive Atheist stance. They shouldn't be required to get married to have benefits, hence a civil union. Now, I suppose this is actually fueling the "fight" from the opposite side, but in their case it has nothing to do with gay marriage but with an anti-religious sentiment. They really don't want to be
really married and they don't want to be discriminated against for their beliefs. I believe in a fundamental separation between church and state, and traditional marriage has always blurred the two. If you want to do it right, then we get rid of "Marriage" and call it Civil Union vs Holy Matrimony or something, but we're arguing semantics.
If you are a homosexual in a church or religion that expressly forbids homosexual marriage but you want to have your ceremony at that church, then you need to leave that church, not force your beliefs down their (admittedly bigoted) throats. I believe that intolerance can go both ways and we need to protect people who are exercising their rights within limits. I feel for the christian bakers and religious business owners that put their beliefs above their business (which is kind of hypocritical to begin with), but it really sucks to be on the receiving end of the stick, much like women, blacks, and the LGBT community are, and there's not much I or anyone else can do to ease their suffering other than by being nice to them whenever possible.
"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"